Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qualcomm Linux 2.0

qualcomm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#31

Post by jogu »

guilamu wrote: post #30
pjmlp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When will folks learn companies only support Linux or any other FOSS to the extent their own business goals? None of them are on the game for the well being of the community or whatever. Profits and lower R&D costs, that is all.

Wouldn't you say that Valve is an exception to that rule?

No, I think Valve prioritizing an open platform independent of Microsoft aligns with their business goals.

They’re doing it in a manner that has broad benefits, but it’s definitely a win-win situation.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#32

Post by tlamponi »

jogu wrote: post #31
guilamu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you say that Valve is an exception to that rule?

No, I think Valve prioritizing an open platform independent of Microsoft aligns with their business goals. They’re doing it in a manner that has broad benefits, but it’s definitely a win-win situation.

Sure, but Qualcomm upstreaming their support to mainline would also have broad benefits for them and be a win-win. Their C-suits & bean counters are seemingly just not getting that themselves nor having anyone that knows that high enough the hierachy...

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#33

Post by re-thc »

tlamponi wrote: post #32
jogu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think Valve prioritizing an open platform independent of Microsoft aligns with their business goals. They’re doing it in a manner that has broad benefits, but it’s definitely a win-win situation.

Sure, but Qualcomm upstreaming their support to mainline would also have broad benefits for them and be a win-win. Their C-suits & bean counters are seemingly just not getting that themselves nor having anyone that knows that high enough the hierachy...

Qualcomm aims to sue and monopolize so no sharing is caring for them. They want control.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#34

Post by MindSpunk »

guilamu wrote: post #30
pjmlp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When will folks learn companies only support Linux or any other FOSS to the extent their own business goals? None of them are on the game for the well being of the community or whatever. Profits and lower R&D costs, that is all.

Wouldn't you say that Valve is an exception to that rule?

Valve is just hedging against Microsoft having a big red button to kill Steam. They've built their kingdom on top of Microsoft, and Microsoft would love to have it for themselves I'm sure. It's in Valve's best interest to divorce themselves from Windows to protect themselves from Microsoft.

It happens to also benefit the Linux gaming crowd, but it's still ultimately self-interest driving the work. The engineers doing the work are probably doing it for the altruistic reasons, but ultimately Valve is writing the cheques.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#35

Post by pjmlp »

guilamu wrote: post #30
pjmlp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When will folks learn companies only support Linux or any other FOSS to the extent their own business goals? None of them are on the game for the well being of the community or whatever. Profits and lower R&D costs, that is all.

Wouldn't you say that Valve is an exception to that rule?

Not at all, they don't want to pay for Windows licenses, as seen there is very little incentive to actually support native Linux games.

Additionally they want to prevent losing Steam content to Windows Store or XBox PC App.

If they could get Windows source at zero cost, like the Netbook OEMs did in the early days, they would quickly forget about Linux.

Additionally, don't forget current Valve's management doesn't live forever like any of us, and who knows what will happen to Valve afterwards.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#37

Post by cromka »

pseudosavant wrote: post #11
mrheosuper wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want fanless arm linux machine, why not macbook m2 air + asahi linux ?

Asahi still doesn't support a lot of basic things like: external displays, Thunderbolt, hardware accelerated video decoding, 120hz refresh rate, etc.

120Hz is supported, iirc.

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#38

Post by atlimar »

pseudosavant wrote: post #11
mrheosuper wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want fanless arm linux machine, why not macbook m2 air + asahi linux ?

Asahi still doesn't support a lot of basic things like: external displays, Thunderbolt, hardware accelerated video decoding, 120hz refresh rate, etc.

It supports external displays, just not on any port

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#39

Post by r_lee »

senectus1 wrote: post #5
wmf wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's happening: https://www.phoronix.com/news/HP-EliteBook-X-G2q-Linux

holy hell.. the price tags...!

why on earth would anyone buy that shit if you can buy a macbook pro that literally looks and feels like art vs. a plastic windows laptop?

it used to be that Apple was the pricier option but I guess not anymore

Re: Qualcomm Linux 2.0

#40

Post by noselasd »

eschaton wrote: post #20
nullpoint420 wrote: post #17

Just upstream your drivers! Then you don't need Qualcomm Linux.... you just have Linux.

Why can’t upstream just take their drivers? Isn’t that the point of requiring those drivers to be GPL?

Ofcourse they can. But which particular person will do it ?

The "upstream" people deal with their own drivers, subsystems or tasks which takes up their time - but if someone feels they want to take on this too, they'll do it (normally that doesn't happen - it's up to the original authors to take responsibility)

Post reply on HN